Cited by

Opinions in Arizona that cite Gipson v. Kasey, 150 P.3d 228.

292 citing documents.

Armc 2011 v. Fennemore Craig Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶ 11, (providing that a conclusion that no duty exists for a common law negligence claim is equivalent to a rule that a defendant “may not be held accountable for damages [it] carelessly [caused], no matter how unreasonable [its] conduct”)
Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents 343 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Boisson v. Arizona Board of Regents 343 P.3d 931 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
Smith v. Almida Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2015
¶6 “To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” ¶ 9
KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance 340 P.3d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
KB Home Tucson, Inc. v. Charter Oak Fire Insurance 340 P.3d 405 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Lim v. Gillies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Lim v. Gillies Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶6 “To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” ¶ 9
Wilks v. Manobianco 330 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Wilks v. Manobianco 330 P.3d 1003 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶ 9 , (breach is factual issue usually decided by jury).
Guerra v. State 323 P.3d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Guerra v. State 323 P.3d 765 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc. 323 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Touch Stone v. title/western Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Barkhurst v. Kingsmen of Route 66, Inc. 323 P.3d 753 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
I. DUTY OF CARE ¶9 A negligence claim requires proof of four elements: “(1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant‟s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” ¶ 9
Touch Stone v. title/western Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
City of Phoenix v. John E. Garretson 322 P.3d 149 Ariz. 2014
City of Phoenix v. John E. Garretson 322 P.3d 149 Ariz. 2014
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Terterova v. byous/nestor Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
¶7 To state a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must show, among other elements, that the defendant owed the plaintiff “a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care” in order to “protect [the plaintiff] against unreasonable risks of harm.” ¶¶ 9-10, (citation omitted).
Timmons v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. 324 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Timmons v. Ross Dress for Less, Inc. 324 P.3d 855 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
¶8 “Duty is defined as an ‘obligation, recognized by law, which requires the defendant to conform to a particular standard of conduct in order to protect others against unreasonable risks of harm.’”
Doyle v. Bashas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Doyle v. Bashas Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
5 DOYLE v. BASHAS’ Decision of the Court grounds, P.3d 228 (2007).
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Gammage v. Als Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2014
Monroe v. Basis School, Inc. 318 P.3d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Monroe v. Basis School, Inc. 318 P.3d 871 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2014
Koss Corp. v. American Express Co. 309 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Gilbert Tuscany Lender, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank 307 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Koss Corp. v. American Express Co. 309 P.3d 898 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Gilbert Tuscany Lender, LLC v. Wells Fargo Bank 307 P.3d 1025 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
To be successful on a negligence claim, “a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” ¶ 9
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
McMurtry v. Weatherford Hotel, Inc. 293 P.3d 520 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2013
Belen Loan Investors, LLC v. Myers, Baumgardner, Los Luna Highlands 296 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Belen Loan Investors, LLC v. Myers, Baumgardner, Los Luna Highlands 296 P.3d 984 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
h. ¶11 On the other hand, the appraiser has no duty to a third party who is merely a member of the larger class who “might reasonably be expected sooner or later to have access to the information and foreseeably to take some action in reliance upon it.” Id.; (foreseeability not 9 factor in determination of duty); Standard Chartered PLC v. Price Waterhouse, 190 Ariz. 6, 29, (same).
Grubb v. Do It Best Corporation 279 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
Grubb v. Do It Best Corporation 279 P.3d 626 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 2 2012
In her discussion of her negligence claim, P.3d 228 (2007).
Delci v. Gutierrez Trucking Co. 275 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
Delci v. Gutierrez Trucking Co. 275 P.3d 632 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2012
¶8 “[T]he issue of duty involves generalizations about categories of cases.” ¶ 10
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 273 P.3d 645 Ariz. 2012
Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 271 P.3d 1104 Ariz. 2012
Nunez v. Professional Transit Management of Tucson, Inc. 271 P.3d 1104 Ariz. 2012
¶18 But, “[t]he existence of a duty of care is a distinct issue from whether the standard of care has been met in a particular case.” ¶ 10
Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance 256 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Lennar Corp. v. Transamerica Insurance 256 P.3d 635 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Co., , ¶ 9, n. 1 , (in negligence action, jury normally determines whether defendant breached duty to exercise reasonable care).
Estate of Maudsley v. Meta Services, Inc. 258 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Estate of Maudsley v. Meta Services, Inc. 258 P.3d 248 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011
Duty Based on Considerations of Public Policy ¶ 15 “To establish a claim for negligence, a plaintiff must prove four elements: (1) a duty requiring the defendant to conform to a certain standard of care; (2) a breach by the defendant of that standard; (3) a causal connection between the defendant’s conduct and the resulting injury; and (4) actual damages.” ¶ 9
Walsh v. Advanced Cardiac Specialists Chartered 258 P.3d 172 Ariz. Ct. App. Div. 1 2011

Explore

Outcomes

Cited by